Demand a permanent halt to the multi lab Lipkin study

Wonko - you are seriously mistaken about the nature and complexity of power and its manifestations. Your assertions here are just not borne out by real world events.

In addition, you DID make (mistaken) assertions about children and pets! This was in order to critique this letter campaign and use them as an analogy about power! I clearly did not either misunderstand - nor am I 'misdirecting'. It's quite clear.

Click to expand...

Whats the point! Your "clearly" just rearranging what I post in your head so it matches your own version of reality. Even to include correcting my obviously flawed knowledge of my own motivation.

Hi Frickly, long time no see. Glad to see you're still around. Well, I'd rather you'd got well and busy on other things, but that doesn't seem to be how it works for most of us.

I'm a little confused by your last post. Are you saying you can't compare the SMILE study and PACE, or you can't compare Lipkin and those two? Liberty hall, me, I believe anyone can do what anyone sees fit, re advocacy. I don't mean we can physically harm each other, of course, or be super rude...

Tristan, you say

No-one is saying Lipkin is incompetent. But some of us are suspicious, given the history of research into this disease, of the covert agenda.

You can do what you think fit, and so can I. Thanks for the insults. You do not have the knowledge to make these judgements of me, as I do not and would not of you. I believe I once, out of some 700 posts, made a mistake. Got any more evidence?

Again, it's not Lipkin's experience which is not in question. It's the fact that this study is the one to "end the controversy" and "be the last word". It is his reputation as the de-discoverer. It is the absence of detailed protocols, so that we are likely presented with more media soundbites about the "end of XMRV" or some such simplistic twaddle. It's the co-incidence of the debacle at the WPI, and Judy being out of it (as far as we know) and Ruscetti not being involved (ditto)

Science isn't like that. There was no controversy over the age of the Earth before Darwin and co., it could not be more than ten thousand years old, and it was created in a week. There was no controversy over the Earth's position in the universe before Copernicus and co, it was in the centre. Do you see? Science is an ongoing process. Now even the idea, central to physics, that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is in question. The world is a complex place, and we will never know it all.

A mind is like a parachute, it only works if it is open.

I find it interesting that retroviral research keeps, every decade or so, rearing its ugly head up in our disease, and so far it has always been quickly buried again. Two years is no time.

Khaly Castle in her blog, The Mother of all Wormholes said Patients are not pushing for a favorite pathogen. Patients are pushing for real science to occur and to take its course before the door gets slammed on ANY potential avenue of study. Patients are not stupid and are tired of being treated as such. Patients are particularly irked that they point out the discrepancies in scientists and governments claims, and said scientists and government continue to push the mistruths forward as if by saying it loud enough and long enough, it will be true.

I'll do it my way, and you can do it yours. No worries.

Click to expand...

Jace, you stated in this post, "I believe I once, out of some 700 posts, made a mistake". Well make that three times because you just attributed statements I made to "Tristan" who actually quoted me. I was also actually referring to Pumpkin/V99 in my comments regarding the qualifications she possesses over the qualifications Lipkin possesses, not you. It's not meant to be an insult in any manner. It's a fact that Lipkin is qualified over Pumpkin/V99. My FIL used to be a heart surgeon, I have read a few books on the heart and have been lucky enough to watch an actual transplant. This tiny iota of experience never gave me the qualifications to tell my FIL that he didn't know what he was doing or to tell him how to do the surgery properly. My point is that Lipkin has the expertise over some anonymous poster on the internet. Not an insult at all.

I also wasn't making any judgements about you. How could I because I don't know you except from what I read on this forum. If I were to make a judgement, it would be that you seem like a very nice person. What I said came from the content of your first post and the comments and the letter were taken from another persons words. So really it's not about you at all.

Science is an ongoing process but demanding it to halt makes it a non process. Not a good thing. The view seems to be this study is flawed but do we know what assays each group is going to employ. The view seems to be that these researchers don't know what they are doing. Rather than demanding the research to stop, why not ask the researchers involved what they will be genetically targeting. Lo didn't find XMRV but something else, is Lo not participating as part of the Lipkin research. This is a chance for Lo to replicate the findings, is it not?

Okay, I have totally lost my train of thought.

Some people think the letter is a fine idea, others don't. People will do what they want to do.

I am still around but spending most of my free time on facebook. Sorry for the confusion. I always tell my husband to listen to what I mean not what I say. I meant you can't compare the Lipkin study with those two. I am thankful that Dr. Lipkin has taken such an interest in this disease and in autism. I don't beleive he would follow through with this study if he did not think we could learn something from it. I feel very hopeful and am concerned that some would want to stop this research. But yes, people will do what they see fit so no point in arguing about it. I might just send Dr. Lipkin and email and thank him for his interest and work in these areas.

Click to expand...

Quite true. While the other studies such as PACE and the Lightning Process are seriously flawed, they are used as a strawman, ad nauseum, and really have nothing to do with the Lipkin study.

Think I will also send Dr. Lipkin a thank you. Maybe if we do that we can at least counter some of the unprofessional and ridiculous assumptions where people are being spoonfed science nonsense, which is spilling over from other places onto this forum

Yes the letter referred to by the OP, is akin to a tantrum. Good, going, guys. Great PR for patients. Geese, no wonder people think we are crazy.

IMHO :>)

Moderator Note: Barb, please take a moment to consider the effect it has on people when you accuse them of 'ridiculous assumptions', claim that what they are saying is 'nonsense', say that the letter they are posting is 'akin to a tantrum', and suggest that their behaviour is responsible for people 'thinking we are crazy'. Do you not think that this kind of inflammatory language is likely to make the people you are accusing more angry rather than less? The language in this post could reasonably be seen as 'akin to a tantrum' itself. Please stick to evidence and argument and try to avoid emotive and inflammatory language.

Its true that you skirt on the edge of rude, whereas i am more open, but every reader gets your tone from the way you, er, construct your sentances.

Absolutely true, i accept that - Im being rude. But then this topic has become a farce, perhaps was from the beggining, so its hardly a surprise.

Not so. Read the other posts all the forum, not everyone has the same view, but the majority have a consensus view on the whole, especially regarding topics like the Lipkin trials, which, let me tell you, most people do not want put at risk by carelessly written letters. Carefully written letters, even if they are critical, do not endanger these trials, but that isnt what is being proposed, is it?

REALLY? Well what is the title of the topic then???

I rest my case!!

Click to expand...

Sadly your 'case' fails on a number of points:

1. This forum is not representative of the community per se. Different forums often have different ratios on patient (and supporter) attitudes. You cannot substantiate your assertion based on this forum.

2. In any case, you have no figures to back up your assertions about what people think. You are merely asserting without evidence. You cannot substantiate your claims, and your appeal to popularity fails.

3. The title of the thread is not indicative of the breadth of possibilities enabled by this proposed strategy. This has already been demonstrated on this thread. Writing this letter - or similar letters, does not make people naive in making 'demands'. In the real world, demands are made that may not be feasible, NOT because they are implausible or incorrect, but because of power relations. Nevertheless, making strong objections and/or 'demands' is done by many parties on a regular basis. Objecting to this study will highlight its problems at the very least, which is a legitimate aim.

4. You are admitting to being openly rude. You criticise me for NOT being rude, for NOT breaking forums rules (which I note you are unable to cite in substantiation of you previous accusations, by the way!). You should recuse yourself from this thread because you are being blatantly distruptive. Your intent is clearly to attack those who don't agree with you, instead of engaging in reasonable argument! Clearly forum etiquette - or even forum rules - is the last thing on your mind.

I suspect you think you can get away with this - moderators are not around much at the moment, and there is often terrible inconsistency in how moderating is done, sadly - but your arguments about forum etiquette are ludicrous in light of this latest blatant trumpeting of your lack of respect for forum rules, let alone etiquette!

Moderator note: My apologies for the delay in moderating this thread. We are undergoing some further structural changes in relation to moderation at the moment, but this should not be seen as an excuse for members to flout the rules. Please continue to report posts which breach forum rules and we will deal with them as soon as we can.

Arguments about forum etiquette are not appropriate topics to bring into general forum threads: PLEASE report breaches of the rules to the moderators, refrain from enaging in argument with the offenders and refrain from criticising the moderation within the thread; it is completely counter-productive and unedifying, it creates extra work for the moderators, delaying the moderation of the original offence, and muddies the waters as to who is originally responsible for breaching the rules. Do not react in the thread - report posts that breach the rules, leave the moderators to do their job, and try to stick to the topic under discussion - please!

Quite true. While the other studies such as PACE and the Lightning Process are seriously flawed, they are used as a strawman, ad nauseum, and really have nothing to do with the Lipkin study.

Think I will also send Dr. Lipkin a thank you. Maybe if we do that we can at least counter some of the unprofessional and ridiculous assumptions where people are being spoonfed science nonsense, which is spilling over from other places onto this forum

Yes the letter referred to by the OP, is akin to a tantrum. Good, going, guys. Great PR for patients. Geese, no wonder people think we are crazy.

IMHO :>)

Click to expand...

Ah - the old blaming patients for acting 'crazy'. I wondered when that was going to raise it's ugly head! You got to love the 'friendly fire' rained down on sufferers by ostensible community members. That's such an old canard. It's such an insult - but look! There is it again.

Nice one Barb. How would you like it if YOUR behaviour was constructed as appearing mentally pathological, because your beliefs are problematic and your opinion contested? If someone said the behaviour of people like YOU were what was keeping this community in the grip of psychiatric abuse? Because that's what you are doing to others here.

PACE is NOT a straw-man - it is ENTIRELY relevant to problems in science, AS IS the race to close the door on HGRV research, as is the Lightning Process trials.

I'm sorry if that discomfits you.

I won't say I think your assumptions and assertions are ridiculous, because that would be breaking forum rules. Oh look! You just did that.

Just for the record, while I do not support a letter asking to shut down the Lipkin HGRV study, I do support the idea of a letter that addresses concerns we have as patients in a clear and logical fashion. With that reply in the public domain a lot of patient concern could be alleviated, and we would have a better idea of how to proceed next. Bye, Alex

I also think it's a very good thing that Dr. Lipkin has now entered the ME/CFS field. No matter wheter there will be problems with the Lipkin multi lab study or not, i don't think the focus needs to be only there. This study is impossible for us or the Mikovits and Lo labs to control (i don't even know if there will be a Mikovits lab participating in that study, i have not followed the recent developments in that story). But what they can do, if they are right, is to prove to the world these viruses are really there. What i would do is something like this:

-Get a third party doctor or ME/CFS group to "supply" patients and healthy controls
-Get a third party phlebotomy service to draw blood and send it to the lab, blinded
-Have a notary or a couple of them oversee and protocol the entire operation and store the codes
-Film everything and also have journalists who are interested in the story be present at every stage and report about it
-If they are able to correctly tell patients from controls, let the world know

Quite true. While the other studies such as PACE and the Lightning Process are seriously flawed, they are used as a strawman, ad nauseum, and really have nothing to do with the Lipkin study.

Think I will also send Dr. Lipkin a thank you. Maybe if we do that we can at least counter some of the unprofessional and ridiculous assumptions where people are being spoonfed science nonsense, which is spilling over from other places onto this forum

Yes the letter referred to by the OP, is akin to a tantrum. Good, going, guys. Great PR for patients. Geese, no wonder people think we are crazy.

IMHO :>)

Click to expand...

Yea, I like the letter idea too.

Jace was being respectful in asking how we felt about his posted letter. And personally, I think it would be just fine if the aggressive lines were to be removed. But as it is, it appears as more undeserved harassment of one our best researchers. Lipkin has never done a single thing to deserve that kind of hostility. Why not attempt respectful and responsible dialogue with this man who has thus far only shown that he is fully committed to helping us solve this dilemma. Most of us do have questions about where he goes from here with the RV studies, but we need to ask those questions more responsibly.

Btw, The "like" function is a pretty cool addition for looking at census of opinions. Wonko takes the prize this time.

"So what does one do, follow the lead of a patient who often posts erroneous information, whose only research consists of googling, who has never done a research study or performed any sort of PCR or related test, who has repeated ad nauseum that all negative studies are flawed. Or do we put our trust in a researcher who has the capability of finding answers with years of experience. I choose to follow the research and the researchers."

Click to expand...

You can do what you think fit, and so can I. Thanks for the insults. You do not have the knowledge to make these judgements of me, as I do not and would not of you. I believe I once, out of some 700 posts, made a mistake. Got any more evidence?

Click to expand...

I didn't think it was you she was talking about. I thought she was referring to the person on the other forum who she thinks wrote the letter.

Again, it's not Lipkin's experience which is not in question. It's the fact that this study is the one to "end the controversy" and "be the last word". It is his reputation as the de-discoverer. It is the absence of detailed protocols, so that we are likely presented with more media soundbites about the "end of XMRV" or some such simplistic twaddle. It's the co-incidence of the debacle at the WPI, and Judy being out of it (as far as we know) and Ruscetti not being involved (ditto)

Click to expand...

I don't think it's customary for scientists to release detailed protocols until their study is published.

Can you share with us the source of your statement that Ruscetti isn't involved in the study?

Science isn't like that. There was no controversy over the age of the Earth before Darwin and co., it could not be more than ten thousand years old, and it was created in a week. There was no controversy over the Earth's position in the universe before Copernicus and co, it was in the centre. Do you see? Science is an ongoing process. Now even the idea, central to physics, that the speed of light cannot be exceeded is in question. The world is a complex place, and we will never know it all.

A mind is like a parachute, it only works if it is open.

Click to expand...

Which is why demanding that this study not be conducted doesn't strike me as a good idea. Science is an ongoing process, and this study is another step in that process. I don't think we further the process by stopping studies before they're conducted; I think it's better to let the science go on, and after the results are published, to make informed analysis of the methodology and conclusions.

Which is why demanding that this study not be conducted doesn't strike me as a good idea. Science is an ongoing process, and this study is another step in that process. I don't think we further the process by stopping studies before they're conducted; I think it's better to let the science go on, and after the results are published, to make informed analysis of the methodology and conclusions.

Click to expand...

I think this is an understandable and reasonable position to hold. However, when neutral 'science' is not actually prevailing but politics, bad science (by which I mean flawed and possibly not done in good faith, and there are enough reasons to think this is the case with the Lipkin study), and science which could ruin actual progress in that scientific field because it's so flawed (again, enough reasons to think so with this study), it would be remiss to keep silence and not raise reasonable objections. This letter IS based on reasonable objections.

This is not to say people SHOULD use it, only that they MIGHT, and it is still a reasonable proposition.

PACE and the LP both claim to be the kind of science that should be allowed to 'proceed' in the name of science, after all.

I should also say - the attacks on the actual person who wrote this letter? Sheer ad hominem. Not cool.

Jace was being respectful in asking how we felt about his posted letter. And personally, I think it would be just fine if the aggressive lines were to be removed. But as it is, it appears as more undeserved harassment of one our best researchers. Lipkin has never done a single thing to deserve that kind of hostility. Why not attempt respectful and responsible dialogue with this man who has thus far only shown that he is fully committed to helping us solve this dilemma. Most of us do have questions about where he goes from here with the RV studies, but we need to ask those questions more responsibly.

Btw, The "like" function is a pretty cool addition for looking at census of opinions. Wonko takes the prize this time.

Click to expand...

Problems with believing the 'like' facility is an adequate reflection of 'census' of opinion is:

1. The numbers are consistently too small to reflect anything much, except some singular 'tag-teaming' going on perhaps on this particular thread at most.

2. People 'liking' a post does not make it right - that is an appeal to popularity that fails, because some of these slightly 'liked' posts actually break forum rules! It means people are voting with bad faith and vindictiveness. That's not good!

3. People here can do what they like - there is no law saying they have to follow what the loudest or most aggressive forum members say. 'Consensus' is therefore irrelevant on people's decisions whether or not to adopt this letter in whatever form they choose.

Plus - I disagree about the letter being harassment. It's legitimate objection. 'Harassment' claims just do not hold water in this way. They are redolent of Wessely's campaign in the summer.

1. This forum is not representative of the community per se. Different forums often have different ratios on patient (and supporter) attitudes. You cannot substantiate your assertion based on this forum.

2. In any case, you have no figures to back up your assertions about what people think. You are merely asserting without evidence. You cannot substantiate your claims, and your appeal to popularity fails.

3. The title of the thread is not indicative of the breadth of possibilities enabled by this proposed strategy. This has already been demonstrated on this thread. Writing this letter - or similar letters, does not make people naive in making 'demands'. In the real world, demands are made that may not be feasible, NOT because they are implausible or incorrect, but because of power relations. Nevertheless, making strong objections and/or 'demands' is done by many parties on a regular basis. Objecting to this study will highlight its problems at the very least, which is a legitimate aim.

4. You are admitting to being openly rude. You criticise me for NOT being rude, for NOT breaking forums rules (which I note you are unable to cite in substantiation of you previous accusations, by the way!). You should recuse yourself from this thread because you are being blatantly distruptive. Your intent is clearly to attack those who don't agree with you, instead of engaging in reasonable argument! Clearly forum etiquette - or even forum rules - is the last thing on your mind.

Click to expand...

Regarding your first point, its true that this forum doesnt represent everyone with the illness, but whenever you have a large group you have to take a sample. Its a large enough sample to draw such conclusions as i did, which was a statement about majority. i.e. greater than 50%

Point 2, well, evidence is more than statistics my dear - I work (or did until recently) in the area of evidence. So im afraid your just wrong on that one.

point 3, you hold a strange view here. The topic has gone off-topic, but the core is that the OP wanted to DEMAND something, thats in the title and its twice in his/her letter.

I think you know your point is weak too, because you requalify it at the end, making the subject, 'Objecting' which of course is far more reasonable and likely to have a positive outcome. As another poster alludes to, demanding is a poor tactic, however much it is used.

point 4, yes i was rude. i admited it, but i was pointing out that i was by no means the first in the topic to be rude. i was critising you for being rude, not for NOT being rude. Your are obviously reading what you want to read as another poster also mentioned.

I am going to take one piece of advise though, i am going to recuse myself from this topic. Not because i feel i am being disruptive, i simply dont agree with that. What has made this topic disruptive, is that the OP asked for our thoughts, but what he actually meant was, reply if you agree with me. Well, thats hardly my fault.
This topic is therefore a waste of time. You and others, dont want to hear opposing views, whether they are given politely as i did at first, or more rudely as i did later.

The reasuring thing is that you will just be wasting your time with the letter in its current form, and no one will take you seriously, so you can do little damage.

it appears as more undeserved harassment of one our best researchers. Lipkin has never done a single thing to deserve that kind of hostility.

Click to expand...

My final word will be to highlight what Tristen says here. Exactly right, and i can only hope you will listen to him, if not me.

Regarding your first point, its true that this forum doesnt represent everyone with the illness, but whenever you have a large group you have to take a sample. Its a large enough sample to draw such conclusions as i did, which was a statement about majority. i.e. greater than 50%

Point 2, well, evidence is more than statistics my dear - I work (or did until recently) in the area of evidence. So im afraid your just wrong on that one.

point 3, you hold a strange view here. The topic has gone off-topic, but the core is that the OP wanted to DEMAND something, thats in the title and its twice in his/her letter.

I think you know your point is weak too, because you requalify it at the end, making the subject, 'Objecting' which of course is far more reasonable and likely to have a positive outcome. As another poster alludes to, demanding is a poor tactic, however much it is used.

point 4, yes i was rude. i admited it, but i was pointing out that i was by no means the first in the topic to be rude. i was critising you for being rude, not for NOT being rude. Your are obviously reading what you want to read as another poster also mentioned.

I am going to take one piece of advise though, i am going to recuse myself from this topic. Not because i feel i am being disruptive, i simply dont agree with that. What has made this topic disruptive, is that the OP asked for our thoughts, but what he actually meant was, reply if you agree with me. Well, thats hardly my fault.
This topic is therefore a waste of time. You and others, dont want to hear opposing views, whether they are given politely as i did at first, or more rudely as i did later.

The reasuring thing is that you will just be wasting your time with the letter in its current form, and no one will take you seriously, so you can do little damage.

My final word will be to highlight what Tristen says here. Exactly right, and i can only hope you will listen to him, if not me.

Click to expand...

Ok,

It's clear that the most fundamental difference between me and you is that you have an early retreat to committment. You believe what you believe, and evidence and logic will not sway you. By a metaphorical contemptuous wave of your hand, you believe you can dismiss the thorny problem of substantiation of wilder claims that you make. You truly believe you can make unsubstantiated assertions, and they are equal to actual evidence and logic! It's absurdity to the extreme.

This irrational retreat to committment is also very clear from your belief that, because I have constructed an argument in suitablly tentative terms, that it shows a sign of 'weakness'. Your bull-headedness precludes rational debate on this topic, sadly. it's impossible to have a rational debate with such an idealogue, especially one who resorts to patronising addresses such as 'my dear' to compensate for their lack of rational argument with empirical adequacy.

Clearly I was NOT being rude - you have no evidence to back up that claim- especially as you resorted to rudeness to coover up your lack of actual coherent and empirically adequate argument extremely quickly, in the way you treated Jace. It was a STARK difference to my comments, and you know that - hence the 'skirting around' comment.

But hey- 'well done' for getting past the moderators and sucessfully breaking the forum rules!

I had a very short conversation via email with Dr Lipkin last night. He now has read the letter posted by Jace who will not divulge the source of this letter even though it was easy to guess. Dr Lipkin made some extremely good and logical points about the study, who is participating, the assays etc.. I will not post the emails here as I don't have permission to repost and often the words of researchers like Lipkin get so massively twisted that the meaning gets lost.

I asked my questions, they were answered.

Click to expand...

thanks for sharing .. and thou we all dont know what was asked and what was said. I completely understand the comment " I will not post the emails here as I don't have permission to repost and often the words of researchers like Lipkin get so massively twisted that the meaning gets lost. "

I also understand the worry some have too.. its all cause we have been all screwed over just too many times before by people.

Jace -- a direct line consisted of me finding a publicly posted email address for Lipkin. I wrote him a very respectful letter with no demands. I asked him a few questions which were pertinent to me. I did not do it anonymously either. Rather than sending a demand orginated by an anonymous person (you say it was posted by Pumpkin on the mecfsforums who used to go under the username V99 -- I looked at that post and it seems V99 wrote it judging by her statements) I chose to go straight to the source of the research which makes much more sense to me. The fact that he bothered to spend time during his evening to write back to a person who he does not know shows he does have concern for the patient population.

Click to expand...

I do like the idea that someone mailed the researcher to ask things and then came back and reassured people here about his openness to her questions etc etc. . Im greatful to her for that.
.....

But I also want to say to everyone here.. please also consider the time etc we are taking away from our researchers who I think most of us would like them to be fully focused on their research.. rather then having to act like secretaries and doing emails to the patient population. I'd hate to think just how many emails our researchers get from us. It must take a lot of their time and energy to be replying to everyone. I wonder just how much time Lipkin ends up having to do that.

I soo want them to be able to get on with and really be focused on their work without stress. The more time and energy they have, the faster some studies will procede.

Maybe the patient group should nominate spokespeople for everyone, those people most trust, to contact a researcher and ask "nicely".. whenever we as a group have questions.

I see many want to send a thank you to Lipkin to express appreciation for being in research to try to help us. etc
Instead of many emails saying thank you flooding his email and hence taking up his time and making more work for him.. maybe it would be better for someone to do one of those group ecards in which many from the ME community can individaully sign and write their own supportive message and have it sent via just one email.

Does anyone know of a site where there are those? (I signed a group one some time back but have forgotten where it came from). Does anyone want to arrange that? (its probably a good time for something like that to be sent).

Just for the record, while I do not support a letter asking to shut down the Lipkin HGRV study, I do support the idea of a letter that addresses concerns we have as patients in a clear and logical fashion. With that reply in the public domain a lot of patient concern could be alleviated, and we would have a better idea of how to proceed next. Bye, Alex

The general intent of message I agree with and will send off what is quoted below. It is important "to go on record" that looking for a clone does not equal looking for a real virus. That part of the science I understand without question.

I think everybody got derailed by the beginning of the post. Demanding and haulting research, Lipkin certainly won't stop the program. However, at least maybe he will re-consider the study design.

I added this to mine:

I'm concerned about the upcoming study on XMRV by Dr Lipkin. PLease consider the statement below from the ME/CFS patient community as you move forward with further studies on XMRV or HGRV's.

It is now apparent that the viruses discovered in Lombardi et al. are not the prostate cancer synthetic VP-62/XRMV reference.

As the 3 full-length sequences that Bob Silverman at the Cleveland clinic sequenced for Lombardi et al. were in fact VP62 plasmid contamination that was present in his lab samples and not the viruses isolated by the Mikovits and Ruscetti labs.

The same samples in the WPI/NCI labs have been proven to be free from VP-62 plasmid contamination by an independent lab and in fact the VP-62 plasmid had never been in the Ruscetti/NCI or Mikovits/WPI labs. Consequently all studies that have used VP-62 to optimize their assays have been searching for the wrong viruses.

Although the wrong target does by itself explain the discrepancy of results there is also the issue that these studies have also failed to clinically validate these assays, as they have not at any time provided evidence that they were capable of detecting integrated human gamma retroviruses (HGRVs). They have only proved that they could find a free-floating synthetic virus.